Home Forums Polls! Acting vs. Directing – Clint Eastwood

Acting vs. Directing – Clint Eastwood

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
Created
5 years ago
Last Reply
5 years ago
8
replies
448
views
5
users
3
2
1
  • Macbeth
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 7th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541378

    What field do you think Eastwood succeeded most at during his career?

    Here are the statistics:
    0/2 Best Actor Wins
    2/4 Best Director Wins
    2/4 Best Picture Wins

    Reply
    allabout oscars
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 20th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541380

    His nominations were scarce..
    Only in MDB did  he give an actual acting performance.
    IMO..he has always been bad…
    As far as directing…I think his efficiency with his films
    and making money for WB has elevated him to a status
    of excellence..but I think that status is over-rated as well..
    Clint Eastwood…60 years in movies…has received
    every major lifetime achievenent award…
    For me..his best work as a director is MYSTIC RIVER
    working with very fine actors and managing to not
    fill the small parts with noticebly bad actors…
    I have problems with most of his films due to the fact
    he casts actors who give him that 1 take he is looking
    for…and in some cases….just plain bad…
    His films are sometimes cohesive and his production
    values are usually well done…he knows how to make
    a film…but IMO…just ordinary in most cases..

    ReplyCopy URL
    Renaton
    Member
    Joined:
    Jun 4th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541381

    Now we’re talking! Clint is an incredibly consistent director, releasing some of the best films of the 25 years. But he also has some very iconic performances (The Man With No Name, Dirty Harry) and in my opinion deserved to win the Oscar for “Million Dollar Baby” as an actor. But I gotta go with director for some “Unforgiven” (masterpiece!), “Gran Torino” and “Letters From Iwo Jima” love.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Pieman1994
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 14th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541382

    As of late, I would peg him as inconsistent. Changeling, J. Edgar, Hearafter, Space Cowboys and arguably Invictus were pretty underwhelming. Then agian, Eastwood has done quite a lot of memorable work. Gran Torino, Unforgiven, Mystic River, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters for Iwo Jima are all fantastic. Million Dollar Baby is fine, but nothing I would use to make a case for Eastwood. As an actor, Eastwood has definitely left his mark on cinema in a way that is more iconic than any of his films. He is better as a director, but probably more culturally significant. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Renaton
    Member
    Joined:
    Jun 4th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541383

    Changeling and Invictus are better than people give them credit for. They are not as great as his best work, but they would be among the best of most Oscar nominated directors. It really says a lot about him. And Bird is really great, as is The Bridges of Madison County (yeah, i said it).

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anthony
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 17th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541384

    Clint Eastwood is definitely iconic in both fields, though I am not as passionate about him as many seem to be, but I would say that he has done some very strong work as a Director especially so I will cast my vote there.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Icky
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 28th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541385

    I’m just not an Eastwood fan. I get it, but no. He’s given a couple of decent-good performances. I liked him in ‘Bridges’. I consider Unforgiven and ‘Letters’ near-great. I could take or leave everything else he’s directed. His directing is often too muddled and bombastic to be telling essentially simple stories.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Renaton
    Member
    Joined:
    Jun 4th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541386

    Oh, go watch a quirky indie drama. “Bombastic”? Really? That seems to be your go to word for visually ambitious directors. It’s especially weird considering you’re a fan of Scorsese, and he has been much more guilty of bombast than Clint (and I’m a bigger Marty fan than Clint’s). 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Icky
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 28th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #541387

    You really want to go there, uh?

    I’m not anti-bombast. (I am however anti-Brazil and anti-eye wear). But I feel Eastwood uses it incorrectly much of the time. Mystic River needed to be a lot more intimate and streamlined. All I pretty much remember from that movie is Sean Penn sreaming like all hell in street while overwhelming music began to assault me. That how I felt about the whole movie. Million Dollar Baby has an inherently sentimental story. So, was Morgan Freeman’s syrupy narration ness (yes, ness is my new favorite non-word.)? His movies often come off like clumsily stitched together pieces of movies made 3 or 4 forty decades ago, which is probably part of their appeal. Then there’s the grainy, overly blue and brown photography in his latter movies that always bug me. BTW, who are these visually ambitious directors I always take issue with?

    Now, time to re-watch Ghost World.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Andrew D - Aug 31, 2017
Polls!
darthva... - Aug 21, 2017
Polls!